<p>I knew someone who had a set of twins in college who were each getting about $30K a year in financial aid, when the parent decided a “commitment ceremony” was in order with a SO. Did not want him moving in with her without some kind of to do. But did not want to forego $120K of financial aid either. They quietly got married a few years later, and by that time they got some other financial affairs in order too.</p>
<p>When one is older and has other family and asset issues, marriage is not so easy with prenups and other sitautions. But simply “shacking up” doesn’t seem to set a good example either. So the commitment ceremony servers for a good middle ground with the true marriage coming later. This can happen with elderly who are on social security or pensions that have a remarriage clause or living on trust proceeds with the same. I remember on elderly woman who was permitted to live rent free in a very nice home where she had lived most of her life, but it would go to a stepchild if she ever remarried, not to mention any other financial issues. So she lived with a SO without the benefit of a legal marriage and kept those other privileges.</p>
<p>Is it fair to keep getting alimony or a portion of an ex-spouse’s pension by avoiding marriage but entering into a commitment ceremony. I am sure it is great that you can keep that revenue stream so you and the new beau can do all kind of fun things but I am sure the ex and their significant other would love to have the extra cash so they could do fun stuff too.</p>
<p>For a committed couple who can’t have ‘Ceremony A’ (legal and/or religious marriage), they will find a way to show their commitment to each other anyway. And sometimes they choose to formalize their commitment in front of friends and family, and perhaps society at large, with ‘Ceremony B’ or ‘Ceremony C’. </p>
<p>I am sad that some people seek to downgrade their relationship or level of commitment. I am sad that some people put their own agenda above the happiness of fellow humans in love, and cause unhappiness where it doesn’t belong.</p>
<p>I wish the world at large would just be happy for happy couples (or triads…), in whatever configuration.</p>
<p>A former neighbor remarried, and his new wife learned that the marriage completely messed up financial aid for her kids who were already in college. It caused a lot of problems.</p>
<p>KKMama, thanks for the clarification. One of my relatives was widowed fairly early and she and her minor child would have lost medical and survivor benefits had she married her “dear gentleman friend” of very limited means. This was decades ago - maybe not applicable now. Their benefits weren’t large, but they were important to that family.</p>
<p>Federal survivor benefits, including participation in FEHB (Federal Employee Health Benefits), cease for surviving spouse and children if spouse remarries before age 55.</p>
<p>KKmama-I’m sure it’s tricky with whatever your denomination asks of you vs. the real lives of the people who ask-but I’m a little confused. You’ll be happy to marry a gay couple that’s been living together without a blessing for decades, but will not even bless a couple wanting to commit in a more formal way than this gay couple has been living all this time. How do you break that down? </p>
<p>People of many faith gets blessings on all sorts of things-I’ve heard of pet blessings, boat blessings, house blessings. Are you saying you can’t/won’t bless people “living in sin”, or is that, if it’s legal, they MUST marry to get the blessing, but if it’s NOT legal, as for gay couples in your state, you ok with the living together as long as you don’t have to bless it.</p>
<p>And people draw up their finances all sorts of ways with and without marriage. I don’t see why/where that’s got any place in a religious determination. Can you explain?</p>
<p>*Is it fair to keep getting alimony or a portion of an ex-spouse’s pension by avoiding marriage but entering into a commitment ceremony. I am sure it is great that you can keep that revenue stream so you and the new beau can do all kind of fun things but I am sure the ex and their significant other would love to have the extra cash so they could do fun stuff too.
*</p>
<p>That’s a good question. And, in some cases, there is no “ex”, the spouse has died. But, that isn’t really the point.</p>
<p>The point is that during the marriage, both spouses are “earning” those benefits. One spouse may be the SAH parent. Or, it may have been decided that one spouse can take a certain non-benefits job because he/she will get benefits later thru spouse’s job. To lose those benefits after remarriage may not really be fair since they were “earned” (so to speak). Certainly, the new spouse of the ex-spouse didn’t earn any of it.</p>
<p>My H’s company provides a very good retirement benefit (pay and bennies). We’ve been married for nearly 30 years. I’ve taken care of other things (children, home, and our rentals) so that he can direct all of his efforts towards his very good job. If he were to die or we were to divorce, I deserve half of those benefits. I enabled him to freely move up the ladder because he didn’t have to “family track” himself because I was taking care of everything else. In the case of a divorce, he wouldn’t lose anything by remarrying. Why should I?</p>
<p>The rules were set up with the “old fashioned assumption” that women should should lose these benefits upon remarriage because the new H would now happily support her. There was a time when that was probably the case…probably when the new H was a widower rather than a divorced person who had to split money/assets with an ex. lol</p>
<p>But, now the situation is quite different. Few divorced men in their 50s/60s are willing or able to take on the sole responsibility of providing for a new wife who comes in totally empty-handed with no retirement income expected.</p>
<p>I have a brother who is calls himself a 3 time loser at marriage. He was married and divorced three times by the time he was 27. First two marriages were at ages 19 and 22 and lasted less than 2 years. He swore no more, and was over 50 and living with his SO for over ten years before getting married and only did so when my niece came into the picture. We don’t even know when they got married, as they had some sort of reception/dinner, commitment ceremony totally separate from the actual legal marriage and were vague about it. He’s 70 now and, specifically confirmed that he is married, </p>
<p>So there are sometimes complicating factors in people’s lives. His wife has children from a prior marriage, and he has a stepson from his third marriage that he adopted but never got to know the kid. Until he had children with this 4th wife, he was not about to get married, and even then, I think there are prenups involved. You’d never guess there are/were such complications in this family’s life if you met them or even knew them pretty well.</p>
<p>Update- I realized I never posted after speaking to my MIL. The GF of my MIL’s nephew has indeed been married and divorced, but no children. She was the breadwinner in the marriage, so he has nothing to do with why she is having a commitment ceremony instead of a wedding. Seems her father will be leaving her a good bit of money at his death and because the couple lives in a common law state, the father wanted to make sure his money did not go to the BF. My understanding is the father didn’t want her to be legally married.</p>
<p>Knowing nothing about the law and common law, couldn’t she have had a prenup drawn up that says any money she receives from her father is hers and hers alone? If she wanted to share the money with the BF I assume she can give him what ever she wants.</p>
<p>^^^^Yes, she could have had a pre-nup. Seems to me that she is more exposed by having a “commitment ceremoney” (potential for common law claim) than if she had married with a solid pre-nup.</p>
<p>My significant other and I are planning a commitment ceremony instead of a wedding for a couple of reasons. If we “legally marry”, I will lose a substantial amount of money due to remarriage. However, we are both committed to each other, and we want to have a ceremony/celebration with our families and friends to express that commitment. We are planning to have a pastor perform the ceremony - I will change my last name - there just won’t be a marriage license.</p>
<p>Maybe a commitment ceremony should be grounds to lose a significant amount of money also? It would appear that the relationship is the same as marriage with the only difference the ability to soak the ex.</p>
<p>Probably a “community property” state rather than a “common law” state. I don’t think they’re the same thing.</p>
<p>“Community Property” means roughly, whatever was acquired after the marriage belongs to both.</p>
<p>“Common Law” means roughly that you can be considered legally married if you agree together that you’re married, present yourself as married, and you live together.</p>
<p>In the case of Texas, it’s a community property AND a common law state, so…they wouldn’t be very well protected.</p>
<p>It is my understanding that if one person in a marriage inherits $$, that money is NOT part of a divorce settlement as long as the person who inherited keeps the funds strictly separate in accounts under their name alone and does not commingle them. Is that incorrect?</p>
<p>State laws can sometimes override pre-nups. State law also governs, I believe, how inherited money is treated. </p>
<p>I recently had to change health insurance policies and one category was “committed partner.” There may be advantages to the man that don’t require legal marriage.</p>
<p>-- no, it said “Domestic Partner.” I suppose the commitment ceremony could be one way to show this. It seems to be, in some states, one step shy of Common Law.</p>
<p>My aunt married at age 18, and was married 25+ years. When H1 died, she was entitled to his full pension (very generous plan) until death or remarriage; she was also entitled to social security through him since she had been a SAHM. After his death, she did work some years as the rental agent at an apartment complex. But she did not have any post high school education, and really didn’t want to go back to school in her late 40’s.</p>
<p>In her early 50’s she began “keeping company” with a wonderful man who also had been widowed at a young age. It turned out that 2 of his 3 children also inherited his wife’s illness. He had a lot of expenses and never was able to save much to retire. When he did retire, he basically had only social security to rely on.</p>
<p>They never formally married. They saw no real need to, and the financial consequences would have severe. She would have lost the pension from H1. And her social security as the surviving spouse of H1 was larger than the amount she would have received on her own account or as the spouse of H2. H2 received a small social security payment because he had never earned all that much–he had managed a hard ware store.</p>
<p>On their 25th “anniversary” they had a commitment ceremony performed by the chaplain of their assisted living community. And lived to enjoy their relationship another 15+ years.</p>
<p>It’s hard to know other people’s full financial picture and what things MAY if there is marriage/remarriage. I feel it’s nice for folks to do what makes them happy, so long as they’re not harming others. More power to them.</p>